State v. Ortiz-Rojas
2016 Ohio 5138
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Adalberto J. Ortiz-Rojas pleaded guilty to third-degree felony trafficking and was sentenced to an 18-month prison term.
- Ortiz-Rojas did not challenge the voluntariness of his plea; his sole challenge on appeal was to the sentence.
- R.C. 2929.13(D)(1) creates a presumption that a prison term is necessary for certain drug offenses; R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) permits community control only if the court makes specific findings rebutting that presumption.
- At sentencing the trial court stated on the record and in the journal entry that it considered the statutory purposes and factors of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and imposed a mid-range prison term within the statutory range.
- Ortiz-Rojas argued the court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (no prior felony record, remorse) and thereby should have rebutted the presumption and imposed community control instead of prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not finding the presumption of a prison term under R.C. 2929.13(C)(4)(d)/(D)(1) was rebutted so as to impose community control under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) | State: Sentence is lawful; trial court considered required factors and properly applied presumption in favor of prison | Ortiz-Rojas: The court ignored/undervalued mitigating factors and should have made the findings required to impose community control under R.C. 2929.13(D)(2) | Affirmed: appellate review is limited; sentence within statutory range and the trial court expressly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors so the sentence is not contrary to law; appellant’s argument attacks discretionary weighing, which R.C. 2953.08 does not permit appellate reversal of |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016 (Ohio 2016) (explaining limited standard of appellate review for felony sentences and that a sentence within statutory range is not "contrary to law" if the trial court considered required factors)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
